A lot of people have been talking about the reviews of Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion and The New Mormon Challenge in Christianity Today. The latter we've discussed a fair bit, since I think it exemplified the way for Evangelicals and Mormons to discuss differences without getting nasty, as has historically been so often the case. I disagree with a lot in the book, of course. But I, and apparently most at FARMS, would agree that it rises above anti-Mormon material. Further to greater or lesser extents, the authors actually try to engage Mormonism rather than attacking strawmen. Sometimes they don't succeed in understanding the Mormon position, but the mere fact they tried counts for a lot in my book.
The Givens book I must confess I've never read, since it is primarily an attempt to be even handed about the historical controversies regarding Mormonism. I'm by and large already familiar with most of the material, so I wasn't interested in purchasing a book that summarized what I'd already been studying or debating over the past years. I am told though that it is probably the best introduction to even-handed Mormon apologetics. Further it is published by Oxford Press, which is a rather prestigious publisher to say the least.
What is reportedly notable about the book is how it acknowledges weaknesses in various LDS positions and is very evenhanded in tone. Unfortunately some Mormon apologetics tends to be a little too energetic, to make an understatement. (Just as some Evangelical critics have) If we can converge on a way of disagreeing in a manner that isn't disagreeable then we have indeed made progress.
About the only thing to question is the date of the review. New Mormon Challenge has been out quite a long time as has Given's book. One wonders why they are being reviewed more than two years after their publication. But better late than never in terms of showing that productive discussion is possible.
The Wasp comments on the above and brings to my attention a review there that I missed. It is a review of Richard Bushman's, Believing History: Latter-Day Saint Essays. I've not read that book either, although typically Bushman is a very good author and he is widely respected as a historian independent of LDS history.
Quite a few comment are up at LDS-Phil regarding this latter review as well. The following passage raised the ire of many there.
Somehow, I suspect that non-Mormons would very much like to see more from Bushman-specifically, more doubt. How can a historian, trained to scrutinize texts, accept the Book of Mormon at face value? How can someone so familiar with the foibles of Joseph Smith and the eccentricities of the early LDS church claim their spiritual heritage? How, in short, can such an obviously intelligent, educated, and well-traveled scholar remain a Mormon?
Some raised the obvious double standard regarding an Evangelical who largely takes the Bible at face value making this sort of criticism of a Mormon who largely takes both the Bible and the Book of Mormon at face value. (Whatever face value means - I think Bushman is a careful reader and critical and doesn't take naive readings) Some pointed out this is a rather insulting comment to make to all Mormons. Would we expect in Christianity Today to find an archaeologist who doesn't buy the readings most Christians make of the existence of Jesus making a similar comment towards Evangelicals? I suspect not.
Carl Moser, one of the editors of The New Mormon Challenge did offer the following though that is relevant.
Rather than just berate Coffman for what you perceive as an insult, you can read his question more charitably by stepping into the shoes of a non-Mormon. It is genuinely difficult for most evangelicals, who are ardent supernaturalists, to fathom how one could possibly accept the story of Mormonism's founding or that the BoM is a genuine ancient text that was translated into English. Even a Mormon should be able to appreciate the fact that there is a lot about Mormonism's founding stories that looks fishy or implausible to the non-Mormon.
He also noted that in the introduction to TNMC that they criticized the type of comments Coffman makes. However as we've seen with the recent Muow controversy, while there are many on both sides working towards friendly dialog between Mormons and Evangelics there are still many who aren't.
Thanks for your interesting summary of comments on LDS-Phil regarding Coffman's review, Clark. I thought Bradley's review was more informed and balanced.
Just to add to the above, several at LDS-Phil noted the double standard in Mosser's comments. However Mosser noted that whether it is fair or not, most non-Mormons simple accept the "supernatural" elements in the origins of Christianity while find similar claims about LDS history implausible on their face. "It is not that they are more supernatural. I think it is a mix of sociological factors related to Mormonism's continuing marginal status and some aspects of the less familiar LDS stories themselves."
Rene Krywult made the rather good point that, "when intelligent people make 'stupid' claims, I tend to think over the issue to understand what they find in the claim, instead of simply wondering why they believe so stupid things. Often I then see that they are being totally reasonable, but I was biased or uninformed."
That's wise counsel that we ought follow in all our approaches to reading. Especially in philosophy where many do superficial readings of some and assume they are idiots. But of course I've discussed that theme here a lot as well.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble